Given human frailties, inborn or learned, science is perhaps the least generally understood of the arts and major disciplines. While societies vary markedly, many in the US society have a love-hate relationship with its scientists. Scientists are hated and feared by many who nevertheless enjoy the fruits of science--and technology, its practical expression. For example, John Miller gathered information on scientific awareness in America for the National Science Foundations. He found Americans to be:

Scientifically savvy and alert: 20-25%.

Unaware that the earth circles the sun: 20%.

Unaware that DNA carries hereditary information: less than one-third, <33%.

This, in the nation leading the world in science and technology.

Our purpose here is to provide guidance for those who desire peace on earth but are not in-the-know regarding science, for some reason or other.

There are a number of pillars that underly and support science. Its quality depends on how well the research adheres to these features, as appropriate for the field of inquiry, of course. Some of them are:

Stated hypothesis or question: in analytic form for testing

Observable and measurable objects or events: need for a data base

Factual: known precision and accuracy of descriptive data

Representative sampling of objects or events: random and appropriate for the distribution

Bias free: human, instrumental, temporal, and envionmental

Reproducible by others: checks and balances, calculable margins of error

Publication: complete enough to allow others to assess and replicate the results,

Test predictive ability: within standard margins of error

In like manner, there are any number of ways by which science and technology can be corrupted. And up to 4% or so of all of us seem to be willing to do anything to win every encounter with others, the truth be damned (Stout, Hare, Frank). In addition, most of us are biased, unconsciously most of the time. So social issues such as politics, religion, economics, education, or personal issues such as a
Personal Hang-up tend to bias a person's logic or judgment.

Whether conscious or not, means these folks have for corrupting science, or any social system for that matter, include:

Especially, be aware of those who shout the loudest about opposing these. You may be seeing a hang-up in action--reaction formation perhaps in this case. In this event, the shouter, him- or herself, is doing just those things they rail against.

America’s position in the world came about because, historically, we followed the examples of Jefferson and Franklin who both pursued science in search of basic truths. Recently, that tradition has been attacked and at the government level, seriously weakened. It must never happen again. While no one can see around corners, we can improve our chances by figuring out who to vote for. See Tea Leaves for more on that.

Comments

Yes the problem largely lies in corruption. But it is the political system that is corrupted. All reasonable accounts have the Bush administration pushing the limits beyond all historic precedent.

If you read the book,you will see that it is the incorruptible scientists who left government service in droves in protest over being muzzled, misquoted, intimidated, and shut out from mainstream research, by political watchdogs who created "stove pipes" for politically correct results. It was mainly the policy watchdogs who revised and censored extensively. There were indeed a few scientists who were corrupted by their religious or political beliefs, just as other professions are. But they were in the minority. Some were given power. A small number were discredited.

This whole issue needs greater public airing. For example, how many of the average voters in America are aware of the issues addressed on this page? From the data reported, the unaware group is large enough to swing an election one way or the other. Is it not appropriate to try enlightening them?

It is easy to forget that science is a bit different from other professions in that scientists are tested by the quality of their science, not their politics, religion or mammon. In other words, their careers are defined by the reproducibility of their data and results. At the same time, being human, scientists can err, or even be devious. Unlike other professions, science has a built-in system of checks and balances that distinguishes between those who are right and the charlatans. The latter lose influence, even livelihood, unlike politicians or businesspeople. It is rare for a scientist to overcharge clients (or lie to the public); it is their managers (or political filterers and spin doctors) who do.

When a scientist cannot report his/her research, or see it corrupted, what choice does an ethical scientist have? S/he can resign, or go with the system. Is resigning a political statement? Is staying? Given time, sound data and interpretations, science has won the day against ideology of whatever ilk. This is the history. It is the set-backs that need to guarded against with vigilance. Not going along with the spin doctors is merely being patriotic; it is a vote against bias and spin.

Scientists are citizens are they not? Why can they not exercise their freedom of speech?

We use "droves" in a relative sense. Read this book carefully and you will see numerous resignations, some with published letters; many early retirements happened also because of the politicization. Not much of it was reported in the press.

Neutrality in science refers to science, not to freedom of speech. Peer reviews are strong barriers to biasing results. A scientist who lets his emotions interpret his/her data soon loses credibility.

With cost information such as this in hand, the responsible executive setting a price will add enough profit to tide the company over in hard times while returning dividends to stockholders--all after taxes.

Yes, we have said before, some "scientists" are charlatans.

A more general question: Where would the world be today without its scientists? Have the lawyers and politicians added to our safety, comfort, and longevity like the scientists have? The answer to these is our perspective.

What kind of world would it be if:
national electrical and local grids, computers, telecommunication, telephone, radio and TV; autos, buses, trains, airplanes; medicines, food preservatives; modern materials science; all reverted to their levels of year 1600?

Was it not science that gave other sectors of society the tools needed for both war and peace? Damascus steel changed warfare just as the A bomb did. Who invented each? Who is more important to prosperity? The innovators, or those who employ their technologies?